Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Squarepeg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The article describes a ball game. It cites no sources at all, and I can find no sources describing this game. The problem with this article is nothing to do with notability. WP:NFT is unrelated to notability. It does not mention notability at all. The problem with this article are the problems with this sort of article that WP:NFT discusses, namely that it is unverifiable and, being the never-before-published documentation for a novel game, original research. The place for this is the author's own web site, not Wikipedia. Delete. Uncle G 13:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- So you think it is notable, just not verifiable? Kafziel 13:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- The words that I wrote were "The problem with this article is nothing to do with notability.". Please read the essay that you linked to. It explains what the problems with these articles are. Uncle G 14:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- But there can be more than one thing wrong with an article. I didn't say NFT was about notability (in fact, I didn't even use "notability" and "NFT" in the same sentence), but I don't think it's accurate to say that the problem with this article has "nothing to do with notability". You agree that it's not notable, right? Kafziel 14:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Notability is irrelevant here. This article is unverifiable and original research. Uncle G 15:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- "A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact." This doesn't demonstrate that the game is notable to anyone who didn't attend Bridgewater School, Berkhamsted, since the mid-1980s. I just don't understand your complaint. Kafziel 15:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see how I can make it any clearer. The problem with this article is nothing to do with notability. You are arguing about the notability of the subject when notability is entirely irrelevant here. If something is unverifiable, notability is irrelevant. You are also basing your argument upon an outright guess as to who might find the game notable. That is not the way to measure notability. See User:Uncle G/On notability. Whether something is notable is demonstrated by whether it has been noted. If the subject is unverifiable, notability simply isn't a consideration. Uncle G 16:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. You're saying I should use your standards for the importance of notability when I nominate articles. Well, in my opinion, notability outweighs verifiability. What's the point of making someone run around trying to come up with a source, when even if he is successful it is still not notable? I guess since there is no official policy on notability, we will have to agree to disagree. Kafziel 17:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm saying what I actually write, not something else. How many more times? Notability is irrelevant here. It's nothing to do with using different standards of importance of notability in the above nomination. The problem with this article is nothing to do with notability, as I have said in so many words three times now. Thinking that notability should be in any way involved is an error. Nominating an article for non-notability when one can only guess at the notability is an error, especially when it is verifiability that is actually the problem with the article. The error is in mentioning notability in the nomination at all. WP:NFT doesn't mention notability, and explains what the actual problems with these kinds of articles are. Once again: Please actually read the essay that you linked to. It explains what policies apply and how they apply. Uncle G 17:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, don't start that "please read the essay that you linked to" stuff. That's such a noobish, trollish thing to do, and I know you're better than that. You know damn well I've read it. I've also read your essay before. I think it's misguided, if you must know, and you don't have any basis for trying to hold me to your standards. I know you like to advertise your philosophies whenever possible, but I didn't just stumble upon AfD for the first time this morning. Even if the information in this article is verifiable, it is still not notable so it would be a waste of time for this user to go try to find sources when it will be deleted anyway. Proving something exists does not make it notable. Verifiability is largely meaningless (as far as the practical application of AfD is concerned) without notability. Kafziel 18:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
